USPTO serial 75907894
OH-SO-SOFT
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- ALT, JILL
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with OH-SO-SOFT?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Robert L. Wolter
ROBERT L WOLTER BUESSE, BROWNLEE, BOWDIN & WOLTER, PA390 N ORANGE BLVD STE 2500ORLANDO, FL 32801-1683UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 011 | Water softening units; and accessory parts therefore, namely filters | ACTIVE | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 30, 2003 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Sep 30, 2003 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| May 13, 2003 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Aug 26, 2002 | CNCF | CONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | — |
| Apr 5, 2002 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Apr 4, 2002 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Feb 4, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jan 29, 2002 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Jan 29, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 28, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jan 2, 2002 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Nov 14, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Nov 2, 2001 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Oct 15, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 21, 2001 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Dec 26, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 26, 2000 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Jun 22, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |